Religious Humanists and Secular Humanists

December 14, 2009

In my post about
Christian
humanism, religious humanism, and secular humanism
, a distinction between
religious humanism and secular humanism was offered. The distinction is real,
and operates in the real world, even if humanist organizations wish it weren't
so. Humanist organizations only confuse themselves and their members by
ignoring realities. Don't blame the messenger.

But David Schafer [President, The HUUmanists Association] accuses this messenger
of the confusion. He thinks that religious humanism is secular humanism,
commenting on my post as follows:

"In fact American Religious Humanism, as defined in HMI and documented
in an abundance of subsequent literature, is actually a form of secular
humanism, which differs from other secular humanisms only in its explicit
recognition of and emphasis on the importance to human beings of the emotional
life, the value of community, the utility of symbolism, the inspiration of the
arts, and the need for intergenerational continuity. It is “religious”
only in the sociological sense, as it meets many of the same human social and
psychological needs as what has traditionally been known as “religion.”
The pseudo-dichotomy between religious and secular humanism has needlessly
divided the Humanist family, and the sooner the split is healed the better it
will be for all Humanists."

Yet Schafer confusingly tells us that there IS a notable difference -- he says that American Religious Humanism "differs from other secular
humanisms." And he virtually repeats my own sociological view of the
distinction! Secular humanism, as it is actually practiced, prioritizes rational
knowledge over a religious focus on the emotional/spiritual life, thus breaking
humanism's reliance on historical religions, symbolism, aesthetics, and
communal exercises. Many religious humanists still have churches, sing hymns, read
scriptures, celebrate religious holidays, etc. This is a matter of relative
emphasis, of course -- secular humanists hold meetings and enjoy richly emotional
lives -- but secular humanism really has distinguished itself from all residual
forms of religious conduct and experience. If you don't believe me, read
Tom
Flynn's statement on defining secular humanism
as different from religious
humanism (Flynn is the Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism).

Schafer, like myself, is a student of the history of American humanism, but
he also seems to conveniently forget some history. He would teach us that the
authors of the
1933
Humanist Manifesto
intended to define and promote secular humanism. But
that claim is terribly anachronistic, and mis-reads the statement itself, which
only refers to "Religious humanism." HM1 declares that humanists
should reject God, humanists promote some ethical principles,
and humanists agree that to “
establish such a religion
is a major necessity.”

Secular humanism has ethical principles but it does NOT try to establish a religion. Secular humanism has
successfully distinguished itself in recent decades. Secular humanism's
breakaway towards completely non-religious atheism couldn't have been a big
surprise in hindsight, since telling people to stop believing in God but keep
on being religious aroused plenty of confusion (again -- not Shook's fault!).

Schafer is spreading confusion, not me, by oddly claiming that religious
humanism
is
secular humanism,
excepting
the poorer forms of
secular humanism. How convenient. And we've heard this sort of thing from other
leaders of humanist organizations, such as the
American Humanist Association's Edd Doerr
. But the histories of Schafer's
and Doerr's organizations put the distinction between religious and secular
humanism on full display.

Let's start with Schafer's HUUmanist Association. Wonder why the
HUUmanist
in its name has the two UUs?
This organization used to be called the Fellowship of Religious Humanists and
it was created, as its website states, "to advance humanism within the
Unitarian-Universalist denomination." Hmmm... curious. The Unitarian
Universalist denomination originally was a humanistic religious church -- as
the
UU website states
,
"Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian
roots" that “affirms the worth of human beings.” So if Schafer is right,
then either his secular humanism is a liberal religion (doubtful), or the UUs
are all secular humanists (doubtful), or (correct) his organization was involved
in a struggle over humanism within the UU church. Why a struggle unless people within
the UU perceived some distinction between religious and secular leanings? Evidently
some people were viewed as too religious and not humanist enough, or from
another perspective, as too secular and not religiously humanist enough. The
existence of Schafer’s own organization is predicated on the very distinction that
I point out. [UUs must speak for themselves -- here is a
UU congregation President
endorsing the religious humanist/secular humanist distinction.]

What about Edd Doerr's
American
Humanist Association
? Its own website supplies a statement on
"What
is Humanism"
by Fred Edwords, who had no trouble distinguishing many
kinds of humanisms, including religious humanism and secular humanism. Edwords
served for fifteen years as AHA executive director (1984-1999) and twelve years
as editor of the
Humanist
magazine (1994-2006). And the AHA has changed its
IRS tax exemption from "educational" (1941) to "religious" (1960s) and then back to "educational" (2003), because of
issues over religious
vs. secular humanism
.

As I have explained, religious and secular humanists agree that no
supernatural God exists. After that, all sorts of differences start. They don’t
even share the same naturalistic worldview, since some humanists like pantheism/paganism,
some prefer a religious naturalism, and others accept strict reductionist
materialism. And real sociological differences remain between many religious
and secular humanisms on the ground. I am not the one spreading confusion and disorder. The histories of all the splinterings among religious humanisms from the Unitarian
Universalists, the Ethical Culture Society, Schafer's
HUUmanists Association, Doerr's American Humanist Association [etc. etc.], and then the emergence of the Council for Secular Humanism
adequately attest to genuine disagreements among real humanists. Wishing people
would stop disagreeing is one thing, while having some way to unite them is
another. “Just love everybody and play nice” hasn’t been doing the job. Papering
over real disagreements in the meantime is unworthy of thoughtful humanists.

E-Mail Updates

John Shook is Director of Education and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry–Transnational in
Amherst, N.Y., and Research Associate in Philosophy at the
University at Buffalo, since 2006. He has
authored and edited more than a dozen books, is a co-editor of three
philosophy journals, and travels for lectures and debates across the United
States and around the world.